This is a blog about Singapore and our social and business connectivity with the world. It is about what's happening in Singapore and outside Singapore and how we can thrive and survive in an increasingly flatter world.

Contributors

George YeoMinister of Foreign Affairs, Singapore. Guest Columnist of BeyondSG. He is on Facebook. Readers are welcome to join his Facebook network at http://www.facebook.com/georgeyeopage

Harold FockEntrepreneur (Chief Editor of BeyondSG).
Deputy CEO/CFO of a listed technology company in Asia and CEO of Foundation Capital Pte Ltd, a hedge fund based in Singapore.

April 27, 2010

TRANSCRIPT
OF MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE YEO'S REPLY TO THE PARLIAMENTARY
QUESTION, 26 APRIL 2010

____________________________________________________________

QUESTION:

Ms Irene
Ng Phek Hoong: To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a)
whether
Singapore had provided the Romanian authorities with the evidence
related
to the accidents involving the Romanian diplomat Dr Silviu Ionescu;
(b) whether Singapore has been assured by the Romanian authorities that
charges will be brought against Dr Ionescu in Romania; and (c) whether
Singapore can take legal action against Dr Ionescu for casting
aspersions
on the integrity of Singapore's judicial system.

REPLY:

1 Since I last
updated this House on 22 February 2010 on the hit-and-run accident
involving
the Romanian Embassy vehicle, there have been a number of important
developments.

2 On 31 March
2010, the State Coroner found that Dr Silviu Ionescu was the driver
responsible for the accident on 15 December 2009 and furthermore, that
he was acting in his private and not official capacity at that time.

3 The Romanian
Government has officially withdrawn Dr Ionescu from Singapore with
effect
from 5 January 2010. This means that he is no longer an accredited
diplomat in Singapore.

4 Taken
together
with the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry, this has significantly
changed the situation.

5 The
privileges
and immunities which diplomats enjoy during their posting in
a country to which they are accredited are different from the privileges
and immunities they enjoy after leaving their country of
accreditation
at the end of their posting. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations
clearly recognizes these differences.

6 Article 39.1
of the Vienna Convention states that a diplomat’s privileges and
immunities
begin from the moment he enters the country of his posting. These
privileges and immunities include freedom from detention and arrest
and immunity from the jurisdiction of the criminal courts of the
receiving
State. As long as a diplomat remains accredited to a receiving
State, his privileges and immunities in that State would apply to all
his actions, whether official or private.

7 When Dr
Ionescu
left Singapore on 17 December 2009, he was still a diplomat officially
accredited to Singapore. Therefore, as I explained to Members
on 22 February 2010, Dr Ionescu could not be prevented from leavingSingapore
as he enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In any case, the police
had at that time not completed their investigations and it was not yet
established that Dr Ionescu was the driver of the vehicle that caused
the accident on 15 December last year.

8 In fact,
even
if Dr Ionescu did not leave Singapore after the accident, so long as
he was an officially accredited diplomat we could not have arrested
him unless the Romanian Government waived his immunity. His immunity
would have covered anything he did, whether official or private. This
is international law which we have to respect.

9 But the
situation
now is different and a different provision of the Vienna Convention
applies.

10 Article
39.2
of the Vienna Convention stipulates that, after a diplomat’s posting
ends and he leaves his country of accreditation, some of his privileges
and immunities would also end. While he would still enjoy immunity
for official acts, he would no longer enjoy immunity for private acts.

11 The State
Coroner has now found, among other things, that Dr Ionescu was not
acting
in an official capacity at the time of the accident. The Romanian
Government has withdrawn him from Singapore. Therefore Dr Ionescu
does not now enjoy and cannot now claim immunity for the accident.

12 On 1 April
2010, a day after the Coroner announced his findings, the
Attorney-General’sChambers
(AGC) preferred actions against Dr Ionescu and issued a warrant of
arrest
against him. On the same day, MFA summoned the Romanian Ambassador
Mr Aurelian Neagu, who is resident in Tokyo, for a meeting in MFA and
that meeting took place on 9 April 2010.

13 Ambassador
Neagu was officially informed of the findings of the Coroner’s Inquiry
and the charges against Dr Ionescu. MFA asked the Romanian Government
to do all it could to persuade Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore to
stand trial.

14 The
Romanian
Government’s consistent position has been that it cannot compel Dr
Ionescu to return to Singapore because there is no Extradition Treaty
between Romania and Singapore.

15 Mr Speaker
Sir, it is a fact that there is no Extradition Treaty between Romania
and Singapore. That is why we have asked the Romanian Government
to do all it can to persuade Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore.
We cannot demand that they arrest Dr Ionescu or compel him to return
to Singapore.

16 We have
however
stressed to the Romanian authorities that although Dr Ionescu had been
suspended from the Romanian Foreign Ministry, he has not been dismissed
and is still formally an employee of the Romanian Government.
As such, the Romanian Government has a clear obligation to see that
justice is served. If it is not possible to persuade Dr Ionescu
to return to Singapore, we made clear that we expected the Romanian
Government to investigate and prosecute him under Romanian law.

17 The
Romanian
Government has not disputed its obligations and has repeatedly assured
Singapore that it shares our interest in seeing that justice is served.

18 Ambassador
Neagu has informed us that the Romanian Prosecutor's Office had started
criminal investigations against Dr Ionescu on charges of "homicide
by negligence, leaving the scene of an accident and false statements".
But Ambassador Neagu explained that Romania would need to conduct its
own investigations in accordance with Romanian law.

19 To this
end,
the Romanian Government had proposed the establishment of a joint
commission
or Joint Technical Working Group to discuss the legal aspects of the
case and the evidence against Dr Ionescu. On 9 April 2010, we
informed the Ambassador that we agreed to this proposal.

20 In fact,
as early as 16 March 2010, the Minister for Law had assured his Romanian
counterpart of our willingness to cooperate with the Romanian Government
to the fullest extent possible under our law. However, we could
not then formally agree to their proposal for a joint commission before
the Coroner had given his findings on 31 March 2010. Singapore
could not prejudge the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquiry or the decision
of our Attorney-General’s Chambers to prefer charges against Dr Ionescu.

21 When MFA
met Ambassador Neagu on 9 April 2010, he was given documents relevant
to the case. In fact, these documents had been given to the Charge
d’Affaires of the Romanian Embassy earlier during the course of the
Coroner’s Inquiry, but the Charge d’Affaires told MFA he did not
then understand they were for his government’s use. A certified
copy of the full records of the Coroner’s Inquiry was given to the
Romanian Embassy on 12 April 2010.

22 The
Romanian
Government has been acting properly. It is natural that their
own legal authorities would want to conduct their own investigation,
study the documents we have given them and to discuss the evidence with
our legal authorities before coming to a decision on the criminal
investigation
that they have initiated against Dr Ionescu. We are now waiting
for the Romanian side to propose specific dates to begin these
discussions.

23 The
Romanian
Ambassador has told us that they are working on dates for a member of
their prosecutor’s office and a member of their police to visit
Singapore,
but there are certain administrative formalities that they had to
observe
before doing so. We have to allow the Romanian authorities some
time to go through their own internal procedures.

24 On 23 April
2010, the Romanian Foreign Ministry sent us a TPN asserting that Dr
Ionescu's diplomatic immunity "continues to subsist" and cites
Article 39.2 of the Vienna Convention to support this contention. We
are puzzled as it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr
Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and
we do not understand how this can possibly be the case. On the other
hand, reports in the Romanian media suggest that some of Dr Ionescu's
assets in Romania have been seized and that the Romanian police may
be preparing to arrest him. We have not been able to confirm these media
reports, but the Romanian police has informed INTERPOL that the
competence
to prosecute Dr Ionescu remains with Romania and that criminal
proceedings
against him have started in Romania for crimes committed in Singapore.
With these conflicting accounts, the sooner the Romanian legal experts
visit us to clarify the situation, exchange views and review the
evidence
with our legal experts, the better.

25 We have
continually
stressed to Ambassador Neagu that the Romanian Government should not
underestimate the outrage that Singaporeans feel about this case and
that justice must not only be served, but seen to be served and served
expeditiously. If not, as the MFA statement has already made clear
on 9 April 2010, bilateral relations
will be harmed.

26 I believe
that the Romanian Government understands this, and would not want to
see the entire country's good name tarnished by the actions of one rogue
diplomat. Romania is a member state of the EU which prides itself
on its reputation as a community of values. Bucharest understands
that more than Romania's own reputation is at stake and that it must
live up to the EU’s high standards.

27 MFA has
also
repeatedly stressed to the Romanian authorities that it is not in their
interest to allow Dr Ionescu to continue making wild statements against
Singapore. They only further inflame public opinion against Romania
because the average man in the street does not distinguish between Dr
Ionescu and the country, particularly since he is still formally
employed
by the Romanian Government. However, the Romanian authorities have told
us that as a Romanian citizen, Dr Ionescu has the right to say what
he pleases and while they can advise him, they cannot compel him to
be silent.

28 Mr Speaker
Sir, we have no reason to disbelieve what the Romanian authorities have
told us. The Romanian authorities have, quite properly, disassociated
the Romanian Government from Dr Ionescu’s statements.

29 Dr
Ionescu's
wild statements show that he is desperate. It is obvious from
the comments of Romanian netizens that even his own countrymen do not
believe him. Other diplomats in Singapore have told us that Dr
Ionescu has disgraced the entire diplomatic corps, which is unfair.
Dr Ionescu is not hurting Singapore. He is only hurting himself
and his own country.

30 Despite the
impatience we naturally feel, we must however be disciplined and
carefully
observe due process. We are a country that respects the law. This
reputation is an invaluable asset that we must preserve by handling
the case calmly and in accordance with our legal system and our
international
legal obligations.

31 Now that
the Romanian authorities have begun their criminal investigations of
Dr Ionescu, we must give them time to complete these investigations
and not prejudge the outcome. As I have said, the next step is
for the Romanian Government to propose dates for their prosecutor’s
office and police authorities to visit Singapore. We have told
the Romanian Ambassador that we expect this visit to take place by May
this year and thatthere should not be undue delay.

32 When I was
in the Vatican in St. Peter’s Square a few days ago, quite by chance,
both the Romanian Foreign Minister Mr Teodor Baconschi and myself were
waiting to see the Holy Father after his public audience. I asked if
I could have a quick word with him. He agreed immediately and we pulled
to one side and had a conversation. I stressed to him the anguish felt
by Singaporeans about this case. He immediately responded by saying
that he sympathized, and assured me that this matter is receiving the
highest attention by the Government and the full legal course was being
observed. He assured me that justice would be done. I told him that
we cherish the good relations between our two countries and I asked
for his agreement for me to make public our exchange in the Vatican.
He did not demur, and it was with his approval, therefore, that I issued
that statement alongside with my statement that I had met with the Pope.
So, from my conversation with Foreign Minister Baconschi, I felt
reasonably
assured that the Romanian Government is taking this matter seriously,
but they are required to observe their due process because this matter
must go up to Romanian courts, and they too must follow procedures
carefully.